Talk:Manila

Should the listing for the World War II Manila American Cemetery and Memorial be moved to See? As I recall from when I was there, it is not that far from central Manila, so could it be considered part of Manila itself? (WT-en) Brendio 16:09, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)

Where is the section on get around?

Photos required!

I think a few good pictures of some of the attractions here would really improve the article... However, I have none and am not planning on going there in the forseeable future! Get to work wikivoyagers! (WT-en) Tsandell 16:50, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

See . (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:14, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

Really Manila

Hey, a lot of the articles pertain to Metro Manila and not Manila proper alone.

There is a separate article on Metro Manila. Why don't we transfer most of those which mainly talk about Metro Manila to that article? --(WT-en) Jr traveller 20:59, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Should we add a disambiguity page to differentiate the City of Manila from Metro Manila? Oftentimes, the term Manila refers to Metro Manila, not just Manila City. When traveling in the provinces, for example, when asked, people would often say taga-Maynila ako (I'm from Manila) even if they've never stepped foot on Manila City (an unlikely possibility, though). (WT-en) Rubybox 04:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I have done a lot of reorganization work on the Manila area articles today, and I am now of the opinion that "Manila" should redirect to Metro Manila, and the City of Manila should be renamed Metro Manila/Manila. The reasons include the fact that most of the information for the Get in and Get around sections is common to all because the mass transportation really covers all of Metro Manila. I myself have spent some time in Manila and didn't even realize that Makati is technically a different city. Locals don't really pay heed to the boundaries either, as the article itself states. The boundaries are really non-existent when it comes to the traveller, so I'd rather treat the City of Manila as a district subset of the Metro area. Any thoughts? (WT-en) Texugo 05:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Very strong no. Manila should be called Manila, period, and it should cover all of Metro Manila. If you've spent time in Makati and didn't realize it's technically a different city, then we shouldn't consider it a different city either, and it should be named Manila/Makati. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:31, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not sure how that's a very strong no as it mostly agrees with my point. I'd actually prefer to call everything Manila as you suggest. However, if we put everything under the umbrella of plain Manila we end up with a BUTTLOAD of districts: Actual Manila's own 16 plus Metro Manila's 13 other cities. If everyone agrees, some of the actual Manila districts might be made combined district articles, but still... It's a tough call because actual Manila is divided into 16 district articles while Quezon City, 5 times larger than actual Manila, has only one article. If we put everything under the umbrella of Manila (which is perfectly fine with me), perhaps we still need some kind of Manila/Manila article to hold together the more popular districts of the actual city itself. Certainly places like Malate, Ermita, and Intramuros deserve their own articles even though they are 100th the size of a place like Quezon City. (WT-en) Texugo 19:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

We don't need to follow the official districts! Split up the city in a way that makes sense for the traveller, then redirect the official names if needed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:14, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Rationalising the district articles will take a massive effort, so how about we start by renaming Metro Manila to Manila, and (perhaps temporarily) renaming Manila to "City of Manila" (which is actually the official name of the area)? In the future, when we significantly reduce the amount of district articles for both Metro Manila/Manila and Manila/City of Manila, we may consider merging them into a single article. --Krauser levyl (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No! Look at the dates on the above comments; this question was settled back in 2007 & there is absolutely no reason to re-open discussion now. Lots of parallel cases are handled the same way; an example in the Philippines is Cebu City & Metro Cebu.

It would be useful to check "what links here" for Manila; you will likely find many links that should be to either Metro Manila or MNL. I recently did that for Cebu & found many bad links, & in another search I found many links to Clark that should have been to CRK. Pashley (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, I just don't see the settlement of this question is this discussion page so I assumed it was unresolved. I will take a look at the links. --Krauser levyl (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stay safe-section cleanup!

The "Stay Safe"-section could really be improved. Especially due to the fact that it says Manila is safer than Jakarta, and on the Jakarta-page it says Jakarta is safer than Manila. 91.152.205.80 12:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

This section doesn't even exist anymore. Could someone write something up who has lived there?

Still doesn't seem to be a stay safe section. I think it's rather important given the possibilities of terrorist attacks such as bombings, theft, etc.

Sleep

I've moved some of the more useful listings to the appropriate districts, and deleted some useless ones. Let's keep it clean in the future. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Learn Section

I think we should also add a "Learn" section. Some cities like Bangkok has this. They post schools where you could learn, for example, Thai Massage, Muay Thai Boxing, and Buddhist Meditation. So for Manila, maybe we can have Learn Filipino Martial Arts, Filipino Cuisine, etc.

Style

There is a ton of great information here, but organizationally speaking, this guide is one big disaster. Links to non-articles are all over the place, section headers do not conform to our standards, and above all, it looks like there are two competing districts breakdowns?! I have no idea what is going on with the districts breakdown, but I'll work a bit on cleaning up the rest. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:15, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Peter darling, since I've been away for two years... the last time I've seen and touched this article - it lacked information yet it looked OK and formal and tada did I realize it is a disaster. The city is mistaken with the metropolitan area its part of with the same name. I'll do my best to sweep up. --(WT-en) SnappyHip 22:27, 12 April 2012 (PST)

While I commend the work of anonymous editors in expanding any work, the work by the anon in question is a complete disaster: a lot of trivial information is present in the sections. For example: do I really need to know the history of the jeepney just so I know how to go around Manila on a jeepney?

I'll do what I can to help clean up the article, but I have a feeling this will take a while. (And while I'm a supporter of positive promotion for Manila as an underrated tourist destination, too much of it can be sickening as well, and this page reeks of it.) --(WT-en) Sky Harbor 16:59, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

Opinion

This article is rife with the author's personal opinions and not the sort of neutral encyclopaedic tone one would expect from a Wikivoyage article. The dining section for Manila is an utter disgrace.

Daily Tiem Saving

Do we include the that Philippines Or Manila do not observe daily time saving?

Bonvallite (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Philippines does not observe daylight saving time: that though should be put in the main Philippines article. Frankly, this article has a lot of issues brought over from Wikitravel, and it needs a major cleanup. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like the two cut-off skyscrapers on the right, but this is a much more interesting view than the current banner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the old banner. This banner shows Makati, not Manila, and I've moved the banner over there. Remember that the coverage of this article is about the City of Manila only, and not Metro Manila, which has its own page. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Sky Harbor. This is why familiarity with places is important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been to Manila, but the current banner actually makes me think I'm looking at a mid-size American city. Is there nothing more distinctive about Manila that can be used? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Andrewssi2, here is my banner suggestion (the UNESCO World Heritage San Agustin Church in Intramuros). I believe it is important to emphasise the cultural and historical heritage of Manila, rather than presenting it as a poor version of Makati or Taguig --Krauser levyl (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Rationalizing districts again

I'm aware that the last time there was a discussion on rationalizing districts was back in 2006, but I'm inclined to believe that we can try this again.

I understand that many of (Metro) Manila's sights are concentrated in the Old City, but the distribution of these sights is done so unevenly. There are, in fact, districts with very few places of interest for tourists, and instead of forcing us to write articles for all 16 of them, I think it would be fair to try and reduce that number to something more manageable. To that end, I recommend halving the number of districts to 8, divided as follows:

• Intramuros
• Extramuros (Malate and Ermita)
• Binondo and San Nicolas
• Quiapo and Santa Cruz
• Santa Ana
• West Manila (Tondo and Port Area)
• Northeast Manila (San Miguel, Sampaloc and Santa Mesa)
• Southeast Manila (Paco, Pandacan and San Andres Bukid)

This is all still very rudimentary, and I expect the divisions to change, but let's see how far we get with rationalizing the number of Manila district articles we have to write about. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, also see my suggestion of renaming Manila to "City of Manila" in #Really Manila above. --Krauser levyl (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be quite late, but I disagree with moving "Metro Manila" to "Manila" and this article to "City of Manila". The current naming convention is unambiguous enough, and in fact I'm more in favor of finding ways to rationalize the current divisions given that Manila's tourist sites are spread out fairly unevenly. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with renaming. We have other articles like Metro Cebu & I see no reason not to use that pattern here.

As for the rest, I do not know Manila & cannot really tell but it sounds plausible. Pashley (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with renaming Metro Manila into Manila and Manila into City of Manila (or Manila (city)). The current naming is good enough to disambiguate the two, and Metro Manila's "Understand" already implies that the region is called Manila (and very unnecessary to rename it). But I agree with radically changing the distrification, because our current districts have few to no places of tourist interest. A better plan though is:

• Binondo (or Chinatown)
• Central Manila (Quiapo, Santa Cruz)
• Extramuros (Malate, Ermita)
• Intramuros
• Paco
• Southeast Manila (Pandacan, San Andres Bukid, Santa Ana)
• University Belt (Sampaloc, San Miguel, Santa Mesa) – May be also named Northeast Manila
• Western Manila (Port Area, San Nicolas, Tondo)--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor, Pashley: I see it is better to keep some well known districts and creating two larger districts (University Belt and Southeast Manila) by merging minor ones. We need to do away with administrative boundaries, if we consider the traveller's interest. Newer maps may be drawn to replace the existing one using legally designated boundaries.

• Binondo
• Ermita
• Intramuros - merging Port Area into this district
• Malate
• Quiapo
• Santa Cruz
• Tondo-San Nicolas - merger of Tondo and San Nicolas for the convenience of this guide
• University Belt - merger of Sampaloc, San Miguel, and Santa Mesa
• Southeast Manila - New travel district, merger of Paco, Pandacan, Santa Ana, and San Andres Bukid

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Done I decided to plunge forward and made the necessary changes to the existing decade-long hierarchy (merge some small and minor districts, rename some breadcrumbs) based on the last proposal. We may need more improvements to the districts though, and even our present main article needs more, that I'm working around presently.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Santa Ana should've been its own article. We have a lot of material from the English Wikipedia that would be apt for a travel guide; we did, after all, did a cultural mapping of the area. In addition, what was the rationale with merging San Nicolas with Tondo as opposed to Port Area? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sky Harbor: I see. Santa Ana can have its own article, but to keep things short (to follow the maximum of 9 guideline), it's just fine to group it with Paco, Pandacan and San Andres Bukid. The Port Area is originally part of Intramuros though, and why I merged San Nicolas with Tondo is for one clear reason: Divisoria.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Manila Bay cleanup

Philippine government orders closure of some establishments as part of Manila Bay cleanup. I thought of adding a caution box similar to the one added in Boracay. Pinging User:Pashley--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Done--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging Malate and Ermita into a single district

Malate and Ermita might be better merged as Malate and Ermita instead of Extramuros (rather obscure) or Manila Bay area. I support this merge because these two share Manila Bay and the Baywalk waterfront. Any opinions needed.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 00425jfSanta Cruz Escolta Binondo Streets Manila Landmarksfvf 02.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Robinson3335jf.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 00425jfSanta Cruz Escolta Binondo Streets Manila Landmarksfvf 02.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Used in the article, but I think commons:File:Binondojf0070 25.JPG is better, and it's the lead photo in the Manila/Binondo article, so if we upload one of these photos locally, I think it should be that one. We should decide soon, though: the photo nominated on April 13 is already gone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)